We are pleased to present the following guest post written by May B. Joven:

BYU has modified the Honor Code in response to sexual orientation issues. The previous version said:

Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code.

Violations of the Honor Code may result in actions up to and including separation from the University.

The new version clarifies “advocacy” and goes into more detail about sexual orientation — even acknowledging that sexual orientation is a real thing:

Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or orientation and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.

One’s sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.

This is a major improvement. Previously the section was so ambiguous as to create a culture of fear. One could argue that the previous version could have made simply “showing up on the gaydar” an honor code violation.

I think that this is a much clearer statement. It also is more in line with the Church’s position that acts are what the Church is concerned with.

Dan–that is a fascinating thought. Maybe BYU PLANNED all of the controversy over Cheney’s visit so that people would be focused on his orchestration of that little war in Iraq, when the REAL purpose of his visit was to have underground meetings with BYU’s gay population (since he does have a gay daughter) and selected members of the administration. I didn’t think Republicans could come up with something quite that clever, but maybe they pulled it off.

That’s an important line. I think it might lead to more openness at BYU. It seems to me that it should now be possible for a person who has homosexual or lesbian orientation to say so in a group setting. I think this helps to take the person out of any self-imposed isolation and perhaps brings the person some support he/she may need.

We recently (a few months ago) had a testimony meeting where a man who has moved into our ward shared his conversion story and the spiritual journey he’s taken since his baptism. He openly stated that he has struggled with same-sex attraction. At the same time he bore fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel and I found the whole thing to be very spiritual and uplifting.

It’s a difficult balance (I imagine). But it will be easier if people can be a little more open about this sort of thing.

I’d be very interested in hearing more about the process by which this change was made to the BYU Honor Code and how much input students really have. I’m under the impression that while the HC was started purely by students the administration now has final say and student control of it is on an invitation only basis.

Well this should be interesting. It’s good to see a clarification of position that, while still standing up for what the church believes about sexuality, makes room to make people feel more at ease.

Nick, I think your first point won’t be an issue. “Advocating” is a verb. It implies willful, concerted action. At least as far as I’m concerned, attending an event is not the same as advocating for that event.

I think your second point is a good one though. I don’t know what to say about it, except I hope people don’t stop comforting each other because of what it “might” look like. I don’t think there’s much chance of that though; my husband is finishing teacher’s college and the list of things they’ve been told they can’t do is really disheartening.

Danâ€“that is a fascinating thought. Maybe BYU PLANNED all of the controversy over Cheneyâ€™s visit so that people would be focused on his orchestration of that little war in Iraq, when the REAL purpose of his visit was to have underground meetings with BYUâ€™s gay population (since he does have a gay daughter) and selected members of the administration. I didnâ€™t think Republicans could come up with something quite that clever, but maybe they pulled it off.

I think that this is a step forward, but, as Nick noted, could lead to major issues regarding how physical intimacy is construed as sexual/non-sexual. As a student on BYU campus, I have seen the hyper-application of the Honor Code used as a bludgeon against some of my friends (the issue was not homosexuality, btw).

I think BYUSA ought to start a campaign clarifying the place of the Honor Code a lÃ¡ Pirates of the Caribbean: “…the Code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules…”

“Iâ€™d be very interested in hearing more about the process by which this change was made to the BYU Honor Code and how much input students really have. Iâ€™m under the impression that while the HC was started purely by students the administration now has final say and student control of it is on an invitation only basis.”

ARJ,
Refer to Margaret’s earlier comment on student involvement in the change.

I have it on very good authority (as in from students who were involved) that this change in the honor code came about directly because a group of concerned students wrote to the administration about this issue. Administrators sat down with these students for several hours to discuss their concerns. The paragraph in question was re-drafted with direct input from the students.

I think that this is great. I doubt that it will result in more openly gay students applying to BYU, but I’m sure it will do a lot to improve the condition of those who learn to come to terms with their gayness while their at BYU. It’s also good to know that BYU is open to the kind of discussion that Margaret describes.

“Advocacy includes …promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.”

I’m with Nick in thinking the above sentence is troubling. We ought to be free to have reasonable discussions about the morality of homosexual relations.
When my parents were at BYU (1960s), many church members thought it was inappropriate to use or “advocate” legalization of birth control, and if they had been sitting in on the right campus lecture, they could have heard one of several leaders offering strong opinions on the immorality of interracial relations. It seems like an atomosphere open to reasoned discussion of issues of sexual morality would be healthy.

I remember all the furor over birth control–which was still going on when I got married in 1979. Could Mormons engage in sex for any other reason than making babies? Was it okay to use birth control? The apparent answer in 1979 was NO. So I asked my stake president about it. I said simply, “What about birth control? He then got out a book and went down the methods. “This one works pretty well. This one is not so good. Do you know what they call people who use spermicadal foam for birth control? PARENTS!”

Now to the actual issue: The sentence which the students were most troubled by in the original text was this one: “Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code.”

What on earth did “implied” mean and how far did it extend?
The new statement will almost certainly need revision, because
it leaves wide areas open to interpretation (and accusation), but it’s a heckuva lot better than what was there last week.

Their efforts extended from the visit by the Soulforce riders–these students wanted to organize positive change in an appropriate way that was constructive and worked within the system. Which approach worked better? ;-)

Thanks, Mary Beth! It wasn’t my idea, but I’m glad to be a part of it. There will be continued meetings with administrators and faculty, facilitated by the vice president who met with us, to continue building an understanding and open atmosphere on campus. In fact we have one both tomorrow and Monday.

Does this mean my 20-year-old daughter, who regularly says “I love you” to her female roommates and close friends on campus, and greets them with more-than-half-a-second hugs, and in other ways is physically affectionate with them, is now considered in violation of the BYU honor code? This “all forms of physical intimacy” thing leads me to think that the Utah Mormon culture is so excessively repressive about the body and touching others. I guess for men you can engage in brief hand-shaking and closed-fist touching of the shoulder only? Anything else could, heaven forbid, lead one to feel affection for one’s peers. How sad that this fear of touching has become a gospel principle. Oh well, the new honor code text is a small step forward, however awkward.

Nick, your post breaks my heart. I can’t imagine how painful it would be for you to have been told you were not “worthy” of being “Dad.”

There is absolutely no question that homophobia is thriving at BYU. The onus will be on your daughter to come to terms with who you are and who the two of you are together and how your individual choices can actually strengthen your relationship. BYU will certainly provide her with the temptation to judge you more harshly, but it will simultaneously give her the invitation to become more courageous, more loving, and more forthcoming. I hope she decides that the two of you ought to have some long talks to understand each other better.

If you’re not familiar with Carol Lyn Pearson’s work or Bob Rees’s, you should be–and she should be. I can’t find Bob’s website at the moment, but Carol Lyn’s is here: http://www.nomoregoodbyes.blogspot.com/

Margaret,
Maybe the ensuing 8 years have changed BYU, but homophobia was not “thriving” while I was there. It existed, I am sure, perhaps in larger quantities than some other schools (although I have no way of gauging that–I’d be pretty sure that BYU had a higher percentage of homophobic students than Columbia, but those are my only educational referents). I think a charge of homophobia thriving is painting a bit broadly, unless you’re privy to information I’m not aware of (and letters to the editor of the Daily Universe regarding Soulforce don’t mean anything; I stand by my assertion that the letters are largely written by freshman who need to do it for their English class and kids who want to stir the water and get as many responses as possible).

In fact, I think the very fact that BYU changed the honor code w/r/t gays shows that homophobia is _not_ thriving at BYU. (Of course, again, you’re there and I’m not, so you may have a better lay of the land than I do.)

I think it’s very difficult for a straight person (which I am) to really judge the level of homophobia anywhere, so I may well have been using broad brushstrokes. My sense of the homophobia at BYU comes from some gay friends and former students. Would straight students have changed the honor code the way the group of gay students did? Highly unlikely. I saw the interaction between BYU students and Soulforce, and most of it was friendly (though sometimes patronizing). Nonetheless, the personal stories I have been privy to have persuaded me that my assessment is not far from the truth.

Nick, I think your worry is misplaced. My dad isn’t a gay ex-Mormon and he’s never been bishop or stake president. I never heard people having discussions about “my dad the bishop” while at BYU. Often one would know that people who had a father serving as a stake president or as a GA and they would be very quiet about that fact. The majority of leadership-offspring that I have ever met are very humble about the leadership positions their dads have been asked to fulfill. Certainly, there will be the exception to that standard — someone who is prideful about their dad’s “position”, but it is a stupid attitude to have and those people make themselves pretty unpopular pretty quickly except among others who think their dad’s calling is any reflection on themselves.

If anything, having a gay ex-Mormon dad will make her trendy and cool among the students who fancy themselves liberal free-thinkers unencumbered by conformity to the Church’s templates. To the orthodox students, she will certainly not be viewed on the basis of the actions of her father.

Re # 32 — Margaret, I thought it was interesting that you observed that Soulforce members were patronizing to straight BYU students. Is that because they looked down on them because of their traditional values?

Sorry I was so unclear, John F. My observations were from LAST year, not this year, and the patronizing questions (very few) were from BYU students. There was some argument, but usually the BYU students got angry at any other BYU student who was saying homophobic things. Once or twice, it was quite heated. However, Soulforce members had planned all along to get themselves arrested at BYU, and they succeeded. For gay BYU students, this was NOT helpful to their cause. Note that this year’s appearance of Soulforce was one of the factors in uniting BYU’s gay population–not to join Soulforce, but to increase sensitivity to their particular struggles in another way than through public arrests.

Margaret,
I don’t know if straight students would have endeavored to change the Honor Code the way that it was changed. I have to (proudly/sheepishly) admit that I never once read the Honor Code while I was at BYU. I read that one- or two-page sheet that they had you sign, but I’ve since heard that that’s the abbreviated version. I was unaware that the Honor Code addressed homosexual behavior specifically (and maybe it didn’t then). So no, I wouldn’t have worked to change it while at BYU, because I wouldn’t have known that it was there. (In fact, until the advent of the Bloggernacle, I, and most people I knew, treated the Honor Code as a dumb as it related to dress and grooming and curfews, and nice as it related to academic honesty).

I’ll admit that the one class I had in the Zoology department (Bioethics) exposed me to a group who were fairly homophobic. Which frankly came as a surprise, because it contrasted so heavily with what I heard and saw in the English department. Although, I will grant you, being straight, I wouldn’t have been the brunt of such prejudice, so it could have existed off my radar, even among English majors.

I would say Soulforce was FOUNDATIONALLY patronizing to BYU students because they had identified BYU as a place which oppressed gays. Their whole reason for being there was to protest. This was not a free-discussion party where everybody brought brownies and punch. They had been very public about why they were coming to BYU. And they said that BYU students were more considerate than they had anticipated. Nonetheless, they continued with their plan to violate the agreement they had with BYU, knowing full well that this would result in their being arrested. This is often their practice.
The BYU students who were behind the effort to change the honor code, as far as I have been told, felt that Soulforce damaged their efforts.
Sorry I can’t continue the conversation. Other duties beckon.

Oh, and Nck, I don’t see any reason why your daughter would be ostracized at BYU, any more than a New Yorker would be. It’s something slightly different about her and, although I disagree with john f’s assessment of liberal BYU students, nonetheless, I think he’s right in substance that it will be a cool background detail to a large portion of the people she meets (at a relatively homogenious place like BYU, I was always looking for something different about myself), and won’t be a black mark against her, even with the homophobes Margaret has mentioned.

john f, when I attended BYU (89-92), I heard a decent amount of “my dad the bishop” and “my dad the stake president.” Not every day, but occaisionally. And not among my friends, but among people I ended up accidentally acquainted with — like students in study groups or church meetings. I also heard a lot of people talking about how loaded their parents were, which always struck me as kind of odd because they were basically describing a pretty standard, upper-middle-class level of prosperity.

I did reside at Branbury Park, which (at the time I went to BYU) was notorious for housing snotty jerks (a reputation that was, in my opinion, well earned, though I had terrific roommates). So perhaps that biases my sample. (I lived there because it was the only place that ever had open apartments by the time I got around to making housing arrangements.)

In any case, I heard people at BYU play top-that-status-symbol more often than I’ve ever heard elsewhere. Indeed, after top-that-sin, top-that-status-symbol was the most popular conversational game I can remember.

For the record, my father is not a bishop — not that there’s anything wrong with that…

I would say Soulforce was FOUNDATIONALLY patronizing to BYU students because they had identified BYU as a place which oppressed gays.

Isn’t calling BYU homophobic sort of the same thing? :)

I don’t know that I ever remember contests about whose dad was the coolest or whatever. Nick, I am sure there is a lot of vulnerability for you right now, but I would hope that your daughter can be respected and find friends based on who she is, and that she will honor you in the process.

The Honor Code is a contract. My dad being a stickler for reading what you signed, I read it thoroughly before signing. Of course, I read it with an air of “do I agree to do these things?” and not with the eye of a lawyer.

Nick #8 – I think the key to the phrase “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings,” is the phrase “give expression to homosexual feelings.” If there are no homosexual feelings, then the physical intimacy (giving a hug) is not a problem. I would find it inappropriate to hug anyone I had sexual feelings for unless I was in a position to act on them.

Wow, Nick, I really donâ€™t know. But I truly do hope your fear isnâ€™t realized. While Iâ€™ve never heard a conversation similar to the one you mentioned (in the context of homosexuality, I mean), I did have a good friend and roommate who was open about his dadâ€”the eccentric Columbia professor who left the Church and who is openly critical of itâ€”but the conversations it invoked never turned into â€œdad bashing.â€ It usually was the catalyst for discussion of how to best respond to diversity/challenge/whatever in our lives, and what that might mean for our own futures. And no one avoided him as a result of his family experience; to the contrary, he was really well liked and served as our eldersâ€™ quorum president.

I do think there are plenty of dumb, close-minded people at BYU (just like anyway), but I also think that some of the most mature, open-minded, and truly compassionate people in the world are at BYU. Being fairly open about my own feelings of attraction, Iâ€™ve only had one really negative experience. A small few have been a little wierded by it, but the vast majority have been amazingly supportive and understanding.

And thatâ€™s what the efforts of the group Iâ€™ve been meeting with are hoping to achieve. Even in our meeting this morning, I felt the administrators were very open to anything that might help build a better culture of understanding and compassion on campus when it comes to homosexuality. No one in that group isâ€”to my knowledgeâ€”hoping for any kind of a change in doctrine or Church policy. But every one of them hopes for an atmosphere where people can be more open about so that the image changes from the â€œBuddhist vegan with ten earrings/bodyringsâ€ to the â€œguy next doorâ€â€”or the girl-next-doorâ€™s father (or mother)â€¦ you get the ideaâ€¦

Margaret, what does BYU need to look like in order for homophobia NOT to be thriving? From your recommendation of Pearsonâ€™s and Reeseâ€™s work, is their vision for the Church the right one? Because, while I respect them both for much of what theyâ€™ve done (and I feel like I’ve directly benefitted from it), there is also much of their perspective(s) that I really donâ€™t share or agree with. And I know many other gay Latter-day Saints who disagree with them well. In fact, a lot of what they say strikes me as a bit presumptuous and â€œarch-steadying.â€ My feeling is that their perception and paradigm has been shaped through exposure to a very limited demographic of individuals dealing with the issue.

Tito: My feeling is that their perception and paradigm has been shaped through exposure to a very limited demographic of individuals dealing with the issue.

I disagree. In my reading of their work, I have found accounts of gay Mormons from all walks of life, from the full spectrum of church activity, and from varying degrees of acceptance from family and self. I’m openly gay, in a relationship with a man, and with many gay friends, and I’m willing to bet that Rees and CLP both probably know more gay people, and more varieties of gay people, than I do.

It’s possible that’s true. It’s just not my feeling when I read either of their work. And I’ve read a lot from both. And I’ve heard both speak. Given that a lot of the (open/public) conversation on this topic has taken place with Sunstone and Dialogue as medium, my experience is that those conversations have an entirely different nature and tone than any I have had among those outside that community. And Iâ€™m not talking Evergreen-esque. And CLPâ€™s and Reeseâ€™s rhetoric seems to me to have been shaped byâ€”or perhaps it was them who have done the shaping?â€”that community, and it simply doesnâ€™t represent the views of the vast majority of those who I know who are homosexual (and who are committed to the Church).

Know that Iâ€™m not trying to be entirely critical of either of them. I just wouldnâ€™t point to either of them anyone who wanted to understand the issue in a â€œfaithfulâ€ contextâ€”that was also compassionate and understanding.

“Suppose, for example, that Tito (who is open about being gay) happens to give a purely non-sexual hug to a brother in his ward. Sister Suzie sees that, and thinks to herself, â€œOh my gosh! Tito just hugged that guy! It must be an expression of homosexual feelings!â€ Next thing you know, Sister Suzie reports what she thinks she saw to the Honor Code office, and Tito gets brought in for questioning.”

Are you sure that you aren’t projecting your own historical anxiety onto your daughter’s situation? She sounds like she has found her own way of dealing with the situation and is choosing to go to BYU. Sounds like your concern for your daughter’s feelings are a day late and a dollar short.

Tito: To your question “is their vision for the Church the right one?” I have to answer that I think each of us has a unique “vision” of the Church because each of us comes to it with our own private burdens, needs, and gifts. Each of us approaches our commitments in a very personal way–even if we’re baptized like everyone else at age 8. Each of us must develop our own faith, which cannot ultimately be an imitation of anyone else’s but freshly realized in our own souls. We learn from each other.
I personally have great respect for Bob and for Carol Lyn. And I suspect I would have great respect for you and your vision of the Church as well. I am aware that there are several GAs who work with SSA issues, and I’m sure I could learn something from them, too. I don’t offer Carol Lyn and Bob as “the answer,” but their insights have been helpful to me, and I think they’d be helpful to others.

Nick,
I have several friends whose fathers are homosexual. One of my friends is very open about it. I think he’s had a variety of reactions from a variety of people, but for the most part he’s found acceptance and support. It’s not as uncommon as it used to be for BYU students to have homosexual family members. In my experience, it’s actually quite common. And while, yes, your daughter will likely find people pitying her, the reactions of peers will likely be more influenced by how she tells the story. When a friend of mine tells me his father left his family when he was a teenager because he wanted to pursue a homosexual lifestyle (sorry if that’s not a particularly pc way of stating it–I’m putting it in the terms my friend puts it in), I feel pain for him because I know he’s still struggling with the feelings of rejection brought on by that experience. When another friend of mine talks in loving terms about her homosexual uncle, I listen appreciatively.

I know of some people at BYU who are weirded out by anyone talking about homosexuality, and I’ve encountered some instances of homophobia. I also have friends who actively support same-sex marriage. Most of my friends are somewhere in the middle. My point is that there are all kinds of people here, and your daughter will be drawn toward (and will draw people toward her) who will be accepting of her.

It always boggles my mind and I feel terrible when I hear about people having a negative experience at BYU, because I don’t think it’s necessary. I really have met all kinds here–feminists, vegans, Bollywood fans, yoga enthusiasts, people who make bracelets out of duct tape, etc. Maybe I’m hopelessly idealistic and naive (or Molly), but I echo Tito in saying that in my experience there is a high percentage of people at BYU who are genuinely good and tolerant–who don’t just pay lip service to tolerance, but who actually live it. Much more than in my ultra-politically correct high school back home in California. (Uh-oh, I think I’m on a rant now. Better end.)

Just armchair psychologist. A person who is still allowed to ask a question and form an opinion.

It was the second comment, with the hypothetical hug, that indicates a mind as small as mine. The presumption of bigotry in others is the about same as bigotry to me.

It just seems ingenuine to me that an occasional and certainly hypothetical, uncomfortable situation for your adult daughter is of such concern when she is obviously as distressed as she is about other aspects of the situation.

I will restate in a different way. It just seems to me that you are trying to make rhetorical hay out of your daughter going to BYU to discuss your personal feeling about things.

DKL: LOL. Branbury lost it’s BYU approved status a couple years ago because of questionable activities (like pot-growing) going on there that the management weren’t keeping in check. Since it gained back its approval status, though, it’s kind of gone back to what it was before.

I admit to spouting opinion about something I have no first hand knowlege of as a straight man who didn’t attend BYU, but…

Do you think there would be more reports of inappropriate homosexual contact than heterosexual contact? I would think the eagle eyes of the honor code police are turned toward everyone, gay and straight. It’s just how tattle-tales are.

But look at the idea that you have expressed. Your assumption that there is a critical mass of BYU students who are homophobic to the degree that your daughter risks being influenced to distance herself from you.

Aren’t you expressing an equal quantity of bigotry when you assume the diametric? It appears that you have defined it as us and them and are just sore that your daughter isn’t taking your side.

I am not “harshly accusing” you of anything other than not taking ownership of the consequences of your actions by trying to blame the bigotry of others. Classic victomhood.

Wow, I feel like I’m jumping into a discussion that’s already mvery much going, but Margaret invited me because she said the news was here. I (like Tito) am one of the students who has been involved with this process. Unlike him I was at both meetings (not that that makes us so different); I have been so impressed with Jan so far and the changes that have been made. I am likewise excited for the further changes that are going to come as we continue to meet with top administrator’s over specific departments like the Dean of Students (over Honor Code Office) and The Counseling Center. This did all spring out of us not feeling represented by Soulforce and a desire to begin a dialogue before now had not been occuring. Lest we seek to vilify the administration, Jan pointed out in our first meeting they did not exactly know how to go about getting that dialogue with us. Imagine an administrator walking around Brigham Square with a bulllhorn announcing they want to talk with gays!? Um no. So we have now initiated the dialogue with her and other administrators (as Tito mentioned) and it’s going really well. We are excited to have a voice and help people further understand who we are, where we’ve come from, and where it is we are trying to get.

To just address a random comment or two I read, I am one of the people Margaret referred to who has experienced some of the homophobia which exists on campus, although I would agree that it’s not necessarily “thriving.” But then again we all tend to read too far into words and issues sometimes anyway, no? Also I’ve met Carol Lynn and know Bob and I agree they are great people. They have helpful insights even if I don’t agree with every single thing they do/advocate. I REALLY REALLY loved Margaret’s last comment about our faith being our own, and that there are numerous visions for our Church. I’d just like to say that’s pretty much how I understand these issues as well. I have gay friends all over the spectrum of in the church, out, not sure, dating, not, etc. Lots of them offer advice and help me and that’s great, and works to an extent, but it only goes so far. I believe that struggling is as individual as being human and that, inherently, the path I carve to walk with my Savior in order to get back to my Heavenly Father will be my own and no one elses. They say joy in the journey; I’d amend and state: Joy in the UNIQUE journey. Sure, there are moments where we coincide and overlaps, but there are always different. I think that’s why what we’re doing is harder than some people realize. We are trying to cater to a very diversified audience with different needs, wants, and even goals and that’s harder than I can put to words.

But nonetheless we are trying and the changes are starting and we are excited for more. If anyone has specific questions feel free to email me at: theDOThiddenDOTgayATgmailDOTcom and I’d be more than happy to attend you. I’m not too keen on getting involved with the discussion going on here, only because I’m swamped with finals right now and don’t have much time. Plus Tito’s already got this place pretty well covered.

What a great development! This new restatement surprises me, but pleasantly so. I have to believe there a number of LDS psychotherapists who are cringing at the LDS Church’s acknowledgement of “sexual orientation” as, well, an “orientation.” This is a major development.

Nick, in my experience, kids really don’t give a damn if you’re “living a lie or not.” At least, not when they’re young. At that age all they care about is whether their needs are being met. Your own needs be hanged.

Gradually, they grow up and start to take something resembling a passing interest in your needs and wants. But even in young adulthood, it’s kind of questionable.

The “living a lie” thing is often used by divorcing couples to justify the breakup, but really, the harsh reality is that junior would prefer you and mom to stay together in misery.

Thanks for providing the context around this change. I think it is a positive change and I’m glad that those that participated in the process are happy with the outcome.

Still, I’m a little disturbed by the process itself. It seems to me that student involvement in changing the honor code should involve more than what seems to have taken place here. The honor code was originally written by students with no input or mandate from the administration. This is no longer the case and I’d love to understand better how the situation changed.

I don’t mean to offend, but the process as described seems very informal and a bit dangerous. I see a few problems with it.

The first is that there isn’t a mechanism for regular review of the honor code. These students had to risk outing themselves (which at the time could be interpreted as a violation of the honor code) in order to approach the administration and ask for a change. I applaud their courage. But it seems that if there were a regular review mechanism with student input then this sort of change wouldn’t involve the risk it did. Also, what kind of precedent does this set? Should every group that has an issue (valid or not) with the honor code ask for a sit down with the administration?

Next I’m concerned that it was written by the administration and not by students. This is a University, right? Shouldn’t students be trusted to write the rules that they are going to live by? Or should the rules (note that they are not commandments though there is some overlap) be dictated from on high?

Finally, I’m concerned that the approval process seems anemic at best. A small group of concerned students were very pleased with what the administration wrote and gave it their blessing. Yet the entire campus was going to have to live this new honor code. So why isn’t there a more public approval process that allows for all students to voice their opinion if any?

Again, my concerns are about what I’ve gleaned from the various posts and comments about the process rather than the change itself. I think the change is great, I just have concerns that if a change that wasn’t great came along that the process that seems to have been followed would leave students without a voice.

LOL! I’m guessing that the football team will continue to get away with things as long as the police are not involved. As we all know the Provo Police Department is an agent of the devil, or at least of the yewts, and exists solely to persecute the righteous.

Have I every gone on and on about how I stood in line for 45 minutes once to get lunch at that Canon Center? When I got to the head of the line Peter Tuipulotu (sp?) cut in front of me. He was allowed to do so because he was a football player. Then the lady at the door stopped me and asked me to lift up my shirt. She thought I was lowriding my shorts in order to get in. I refused because I felt that my honor was being questioned, and I had no desire to show this woman my rock hard abs. I was not lowriding. She informed me that I would have to change my shorts in order to get in because she suspected that I was lowriding. I then pointed out very loudly that not only had Peter just cut me off in line after waiting 45 minutes, but that he was wearing a t-shirt, a towel, and flip flops. No shorts or pants at all. He looked back at me and grinned and I was promptly kicked out of the building for my crimes.

Is this the same nick I met at Ft Sill Oklahoma? I was your sergeant. If so please contact me.. I would like to visit with you . The Lord loves all of us. He wants to see us all happy and experience joy. The fastest way to be joyful is to be obedient. I am sorry to hear of your struggles and know that my prayers are with you .

Matt:It is just annoying to hear someone go on and on about how uncomfortable it is for other people to have an opinion about or a response to their overt words or actions.

You’re mistaken to state that the issue is that there was such a reaction. The issue is the nature of the reaction.

Your remarks remind me of something Bertrand Russell said:

To ensure that people should have good feelings is extremely desirable, but it cannot be achieved by preaching. On the contrary, one of the effects of a belief in sin is to justify malevolence towards the sinner under the guise of a wish to bring him to repentance.

A few years ago, I had a roommate at BYU whose father was gay. We loved her. She had no problem making friends, and anyone who knew her well knew about her father. It didn’t make her uncool and it didn’t make her cool–parents’ choices, good or bad, are not their children’s fault. We liked her because *she* was cool. I think your daughter will be fine.

I am not a BYU student, past or current. It would have to be downright fatefully serendipitous for me to ever run into your daughter, even more so in a situation where the subject of a parent’s sexuality would ever come up.

I don’t think that your daughter should be ashamed of anything outside of her own choices (not all her choices, just ones, if any, that she considers shameful).

I really don’t think that this has anything at all to do with your daughter. If her choice to attend BYU is any indication, neither does she.

What your comments suggest that you believe that BYU is organizationally predisposed to harbor or even encourage homophobia. And that BYU would benefit from becoming more socially progressive, particularly towards “sexual minorities.”

I don’t think that you are being completely honest Nick, this language is extremely suggestive.

“This worries me, frankly. Based on my own experiences at BYU twenty years ago, I worry that many students will be uncomfortable hearing her background, and avoid her as a result. I worry that others will embrace her out of misguided pity, and encourage her to further distance herself from me.”

“I understand that many would like to believe that BYU is a wonderful place, with a student body bordering on achieving Zion. Iâ€™m asking for a realistic perspective though,”

“This is precisely the sort of â€œunderstanding and compassionâ€ that I am worried about my daughter encountering”

“Itâ€™s small minds like yours, Matt, who think they already know all lifeâ€™s answers, that make me fear for my daughterâ€™s well-being at â€œthe Lordâ€™s university.â€”

What are you arguing? Nick has experience at BYU. You don’t. Based off his experience, he had concerns about his daughter attendning BYU. Because of the responses he received on the thread, he is less concerned. I think it’s great. You’re making this more about Nick than Nick is.

I am arguing because I think the post-mormon, self-righteousness is irritating. So I guess you are right, I am making this more about Nick that the original thread. But to be fair, I am only giving as good as I get. It appears that Nick is equally irritated by me.

No one is forced into BYU, hence no one is forced to shave. Of all the things to waste energy debating…

Very interesting comments on some very interesting steps taken at BYU.

I’m a gay man who likes to see progress toward better attitudes and perceptions of homosexuality even if meager.

I’m from New York and attened a small college in the mid-west in the 70’s. After reading the previous comments I’m even happier never attended BYU but attended a school where being homosexual was never an issue and rarely given a second thought. This is 2007?

Very interesting comments on some very interesting steps taken at BYU.

I’m a gay man who likes to see progress toward better attitudes and perceptions of homosexuality even if meager.

I’m from New York and attended a small college in the mid-west in the 70’s. After reading the previous comments I’m even happier never attended BYU but attended a school where being homosexual was never an issue and rarely given a second thought. This is 2007?

Did I miss the post where Nick defended gay marriage by citing divorce rates? Did I miss the place where Matt made any of his attacks against Nick relevant to the original post (which wasn’t about Nick but about BYU’s honor code and its recent changes)? Did I miss the most important post where Christ’s injunction to comfort rather than accuse was over-ruled for bloggers?

Matt, I don’t sense the least bit of post-Mormon self-righteousness in Nick. I do sense a profound degree of current Mormon self-righteousness coming from you. You really do need to get off your high-horse here. Your arguments are incoherent to the extant that they even discernible, your accusations are childish, your tone is vindictive, and you haven’t a leg to stand on. In fact, about the only thing that’s clear based on your contribution to this discussions is that you’re absolutely convinced that people who disagree with you are evil.

I also understand that you cannot imagine a situation in which someone would be happier to be outside the church than inside the church, or where they can be un-self-consciously gay, and still be concerned for the reaction that church members may have to their family members. But no serious argument can be based on what you can or cannot imagine.

I mentioned the facial hair rule tongue in cheek, though I do think it is an archaic remnant from before I, a father of three, was born. I have a distain for ridiculous rules that serve more to create a homogenous mass of Mormon youth than brings souls closer to Christ. BYU having a stupid rule like the facial hair rule give our modern day Pharisees one more way to look down their noses at the general membership. How much unrighteous dominion must the masses be subjected to in the name of testing obedience?

Matt, I sense some tension between you and him, but that’s something you’ve brought on yourself. Nick started with a comment that expressed some concerns about the statement in a respectful and fair manner. He followed up with a broader comment that expressed some concerns about his daughter’s acceptance at BYU. I don’t see the least bit of contempt in either. I do see contempt in your response.

I don’t think I would have commented if it wasn’t for the third post, #45.

He had received several responses which seemed like they could have been a reasonably complete but he belabored the point. In that context, his first two posts start to lose their objectiveness. The point I made in my comment and confirmed by his responses.

I still think he was being obtuse, a feeling that was confirmed by his follow-up.

I’m serious even if Kyle isn’t. Just because you see zero need to discuss the no shaving rule doesn’t mean that there is zero need to discuss it. It there was zero need to discuss it then there would be zero need for the rule.

Though I brought up the facial hair rule the first time in jest, I do agree with you. Those kinds of things can and should be discussed. I think they should start slowly, like allowing greek beards, but only on men.

Matt:[Nick] had received several responses which seemed like they could have been a reasonably complete but he belabored the point.

I think that we’ve all been guilty of belaboring a point now and then. We mustn’t use this as an excuse to impute bad motives just because we disagree with the point. For example, you’ve been belaboring several points for some time now, and I impute bad motives to you for entirely different reasons.

Matt, I’m just joking. It struck me as a slightly humorous thing to say. I don’t really have any basis for impugning your motives (as much as I’d like to ;) ), but I do think that your reaction to Nick shows exactly the kind of overreaction that you’re accusing him of.

The Deseret News article does what many descriptions of this change have done: it discredits Soulforce.

Jenkins said Soulforce has sought media coverage, not dialogue, and was not the cause of the clarifications. Thirty-one people have been cited for trespassing the past two years while watched by camera crews, reporters and few others. Eight more Soulforce Equality Riders were cited for trespassing Monday at BYU-Idaho.
Jenkins said Soulforce never asked for a meeting with Scharman.
News of the clarifications spread late last week and Monday on blogs where there was some cheering about creating change where Soulforce didn’t.

Now I don’t care at all about Soulforce, but it seems clear from the descriptions that I’ve read that this change would never have happened were it not for the Soulforce protests. Not that they participated in creating this positive change, but those that asked for the change seem to have done so as a reaction to the Soulforce protests.

Attempting to deny that Soulforce had anything to do with this seems less than genuine.

You may assume that I’m less than genuine, but my understanding (and those actually involved know far more than I) is that the changes did INDEED happen without any consideration of Soulforce, except that the decision was made to delay finalizing the document until after Soulforce’s scheduled protests. Everything was in the works BEFORE Soulforce came on stage.

Those I know who were active forces in making these changes are very strong, bright people. They didn’t need Soulforce to point them to the ambiguities in the Honor Code, or to seek clarification.

Look at -L-‘s comment #22 as well as the first blog entry -L- links to. Then Tito’s comment #23. Then Hidden’s comment #61.

Don’t forget your own #35:Note that this yearâ€™s appearance of Soulforce was one of the factors in uniting BYUâ€™s gay populationâ€“not to join Soulforce, but to increase sensitivity to their particular struggles in another way than through public arrests.

I’ll admit that your #38 claims that Soulforce damaged the efforts of the BYU students involved in the change, but it isn’t clear how. What does seem clear from many of these comments was that Souldforce was the catalyst for this change.

I know that as Mormons we love to deny being influence by outside pressure, but this case seems pretty open and shut.

I don’t mean to take anything away from the students involved by pointing this out. I think what they did was courageous and wonderful. They deserve credit for taking a bad situation and making it better. I just don’t understand the need to say that this has nothing to do with Soulforce. Recognizing their role as a catalyst doesn’t take anything away from the students that took effective action.

A. Random John: “I know that as Mormons we love to deny being influenced by outside pressure, but this case seems pretty open and shut.”

That’s a rather odd statement. It assumes an awful lot (and denies some history). My real question to you, however, is simply this: What’s your point? Even if we said, “Yep, Soulforce had an impact” why would that matter to you? (And there are some very good answers to the question, so consider this merely a quiz from a university teacher who can’t resist. If you can’t come up with an instant answer, read “Letter From Birmingham Jail.”) As of now, you make a compelling (though not necessarily accurate) case, but I am not quite seeing why it matters–just that it COULD matter if you could develop your implications better–and especially if you could keep away from easy assumptions and globalizations. Please don’t take this as an accusation. I don’t intend it in that spirit. Do take it as a challenge.
Though you are not the one to write it (nor am I), someone who was involved in making the Honor Code changes SHOULD write an essay which would include how Soulforce impacted and/or united BYU’s gay community. I suspect that Soulforce would be one of many factors, but not the most important one.

I’ll thank you for saying that the case is compelling but I can’t take much credit for the accuracies or inaccuracies of it as I was simply pointing at the comments of others that seem well informed on the subject.

Whatâ€™s your point? Even if we said, â€œYep, Soulforce had an impactâ€ why would that matter to you?

Again, I’m not trying to take anything away from the people that did the work to create this change. I am interested in the process and in how this change came about. It appears to me that some of the accounts are somewhat contradictory when it comes to the influence of Soulforce. I think that the Deseret News article went out of its way to make sure that nobody got the idea that these protests had anything to do with the process. I thought that the accounts I had read including your own indicated otherwise.

I would love to see a detailed essay on this entire process with a small portion devoted to a candid and nuanced look at the influence (both positive and negative) of Soulforce.

As for my point, it is that sometimes when there is external pressure on LDS institutions and then those institutions change we reflexively state that the change came purely from within and that the external pressure was just so much noise.

Simply because Soulforce is critical of BYU/the Church/the Honor Code doesn’t mean that they can’t have inadvertently been a part of this change. Just because their tactics weren’t palatable doesn’t mean that their role should be denied.

My more general point is that we can listen to critics of various aspects of Mormonism, consider what they have to say, and make changes without endorsing everything they say.

I welcome constructive criticism, including yours. I’ve even been known to welcome some nonconstructive criticism as well.

From the standpoint of economy – there is no value added (benefit) to the world from homosexuality. “Reason” supports reproductive behavior that supports reproduction. Intelligence is being able to realize what behavior is not productive and to change it to behavior that is productive. I do not understand why some support homosexuality and argue that point from the stand point of intelligence.

Regardless of the reason of sin – be it lack of intelligence or evil in one’s heart – it is wise for good people to not reach out to those in decieved by sin. Reaching out does not mean that we deny truth calling that which is evil (economicly bankrupt) worthwhile or implying that which is beneficial as something not of value or something to prize. Being a complete parent is something of value to be prized and a great benefit to society. I am sorry if someone finds this truth hurtful. I still care and wish to help but truth must stand when all the dust has settled.

I’m highly motivated to delete your comment. As it wasn’t as offensive as the first two turds you dropped (which I had the displeasure of cleaning up) in this thread I’ll leave it up, but please contribute constructively. You are free to disagree with the opinions of those participating but please keep it respectful.

Interesting conversation.
A random john–good job! Please forgive my tendency to push people a little. I get paid to do it. But what you said in #123 does go deeper than merely the compilation of comments suggesting that Soulforce impacted what happened at BYU.

Church history is full of reactions to outside pressures (moving from Ohio to Missouri to Nauvoo to Utah all were motivated by outside pressure; the abandonment of polygamy was certainly related to the acts and threats of the federal government; and even though there was no direct pressure on the Church to change the priesthood policy in 1978, the world itself had changed and certainly prompted a closer look at why the policy existed at all.)

I think a brief description of what Soulforce did at BYU might be a good idea, so I’ll provide it–though I’d still rather have someone actually involved in the code changes report on the whole thing.

The first Soulforce protest started very well, with friendly discussions and a few warmer arguments. Their pre-planned decision to violate the tresspassing agreement (and thus to invite their arrests) lessened the impact of their second visit, because they were not allowed on campus for that second visit.

Nonetheless, the first protest included poignant moments, where each Soulforce member represented a former BYU student who had chosen suicide as a resolution to their sexual orientation, which orientation had often meant that they were disowned by their families and condemned by the church they loved. The fact that many gay Mormons have chosen suicide must not be ignored. It should draw our attention without any help from Soulforce. But, with a few exceptions, it hasn’t. Yes, it has drawn the attention of bishops working with gay members, and even Deseret Book has published a work by the family of a gay young man who chose suicide. And of course, Carol Lynn Pearson’s latest work focuses on it. (I would be willing to bet that it’ll be heavily hit in the upcoming PBS documentary, too.)

There is such irony in the fact that the very moment when Soulforce could have had the most impact–that moment of personalizing the choices and tragedies of former BYU students–was the moment which mitigated further possibilities of “friendly interaction” at BYU. Nonetheless, I am persuaded by a random john’s careful compilation of the comments–and his good extrapolations–that Soulforce needs to be seen as an important impetus in unifying BYU’s gay community to work within the system for clarification and generosity in the Honor Code.

Who are you people? Nick is out of control and just another mad gay man. and intimacy between a man and a woman is good. That is what helps the bond stay strong.. but.. that being said the issue remains that BYU is a University of Higher Learning. The Church is led by inspiartion as previously mentioned.. I see a bunch of people here who have weak testimonies.. work on daily scripture study and seek spiritual experiences and you will not worry about such issues that only affect those who are in sin. Reach out to them and pray for them.. love the man just not the sin.

who cares unless you want to have gay sex at college.. that is just wrong.

I suspect you are just the dork who’s been deleted before and a troll, but…

The rewording of the honor code isn’t about whether homosexual activity is OK. It’s about bringing the honor code more inline with the current policy of the church. Believe it or not, but God doesn’t hate homosexuals, and the church doesn’t excommunicate people for being homosexual either. There are consequences for engaging in homosexual activity, but that isn’t what anyone here is discussing. If you truly love the man and not the sin as you say we should, you would have no problem with this post and most of the comments.

Jackson K–it’s a temptation to just ignore your comments and go forward with today’s work, but I’ve decided to respond.
I have to tell you straight off that I have a real aversion to the term “you people” or “those people” because it sets up an artificial division and usually implies a sense of superiority. But the answer to the question, “Who are you people?” is simply, “We are your brothers and sisters.”

I haven’t seen anyone on this blog suggest that the Church is not led by inspiration. If you see “a bunch of people here who have weak testimonies” you are seeing it wrong and judging us uncharitably. You MIGHT be seeing a bunch of people who have gay family members or friends and who have chosen to love rather than judge them. The Savior would do no less.

I personally thanked Sheri Dew for helping get the book _In Quiet Desperation_ (written by the parents of a gay young man who eventually took his own life) published–and Sister Dew felt strongly about its publication as well. Church-owned Deseret Book also offers Carol Lynn Pearson’s _Goodbye–I love You_ (about her own experiences caring for her ex-husband as he died of AIDS), and _No More Good-byes: Circling the Wagons around our Gay Loved Ones_.

You might want to look these books up on http://www.deseretbook.com and see what the blurbs say about compassion and tragedy.
Most of us have gay friends, even if we don’t realize it. Many of us have gay family members. Even General Authorities.

Jackson K, Bob Wilson, Fred Phelps, and Jay Marks are all the same person, or at least that is what the system tells me. I think it is unfortunate that someone thinks that they can be legion (pun intended) and therefore make it look like there are a lot of like minded people here.

I suggest ignoring them (him). When he steps out of line by being vulgar I’ll moderate his posts.

Here is my official post and my last one. MY fiend Nick is a good friend and he and I have spoken a few times in the last couple of days. I have had fun with ” you Guys” and have read hundreds of posts on a variety of subjects and yes have been a bit naughty.. I am sorry. Thanks for “outing me” random John.

I do believe that God loves all and yes I too have relatives stuggling with this. I am sorry and would wish “you people” (lol) the very best

I welcome any valuable and thoughtful contributions he may make. Assuming multiple identities for the purposes of a practical joke strikes me as not too high on the valuable scale, but I guess we can all take this as a lesson learned.

Two things – I am sorry that it came out wrong => it is wise for good people to reach out to others. Even listen to hear if there is something missed that is worth while to consider.

The second point has to do with benefit. I can agree that what people do in private is private but to ask society to support an unsupportable notion is not intelligent and is an indication of insanity.

There is no reason to support homosexuality. There is no benefit to society to support homosexuality. Without benefit there is no reason. I guess the truth is hateful to some because regardless of the facts there are those that must lash out when ever someone points out the truth. The truth is that there is no reason or benefit in homosexuality. None. Since there is no reason or benefit the crazy people with no reason result to name calling – trying to tear down the truth anything except recognize there is no benefit and there is no reason.

Oppose homosexuality and you are called a homophobe. How can there be an intelligent conversation when one side is so hateful and disrespectable to truth and taken in by brainwashing. Since one known technique of mass brainwashing is that if a lie is repeated enough the majority of the masses will believe it.

If there is any reason or benefit to society in homosexuality â€“ letâ€™s hear it. Anyone that thinks homosexuality is intelligent and worthwhile behavior â€“ share with us your compelling reason that has you so convinced. Otherwise, letâ€™s recognize it for the insanity that it is. And yes I am aware that many insane people cannot be cured but that is not reason to enable and support their insanity.

And please if you are going to support something try to have an intelligent reason why. Try to do it without spiteful, hateful tearing down of something else. If homosexuality is such a good thing then tell us what this unquestionable good is that can only come through homosexuality.

Outside of religion I wouldn’t argue that homosexuality is good or bad. I’d argue that it simply is. I would then argue that society has an interest in people forming stable long lasting relationships rather than encouraging the default of promiscuity and instability.

I’m not claiming that homosexuality is or is not a benefit to society. I’m saying that given that it is a fact of life for a significant percentage of the population society needs to decide what behaviors it wants to encourage in that population.

Even this revised Honor Code policy while not condoning homosexual behavior does recognize homosexuality as a sexual orientation. If you are going to deny that it exists then the debate won’t go anywhere. If you are willing to acknowledge its existence then (again, outside of religious considerations) society needs to decide if it is going to try to encourage these people to:
– Remain celibate
– Attempt to have heterosexual relationships
– Have long term homosexual relationships
– Have short term homosexual relationships

a random John: Many insane behaviors are present in significant percentate of the population. As long as there is no benefit or reasonable reason to enable insane behaviors. Mass murders can have long and meaningful relationships but that is no reason to support their murders.

Society must support families willing to sacrifice personal pleasures for raising children. The best society can offer is a loving biological father and biological mother for their biological children. A society that cannot recognize the importance of family has no right or reason to exist beyond the current generation. Even families that cannot sustain support of children has no right to exist beyond the generation that cared for and raised children.

To imply that homosexual relationships are necessary is not true – to attempt to label such relationships as long lasting is a lie. It is impossible to maintain homosexual families beyond one generation unless society can be forced to submit another generation to what cannot otherwise happen.

Many assume that sexual attractions are not cognitive behaviors but pre wired. In intelligent species all cognitive behaviors are learned or shall we say adjustments. Scientific studies since WWII have shown that cognitive behaviors can be programmed. I have yet to see any scientific study demonstrate that sexual preference is not cognitive and is not subject to any cognitive levels of learning. For Pete’s sake it is known that ponography has an impact of sexual behavior. That is because human are a species capable of behavior modification which is the very essence and defination of intelligence.

Society must support families willing to sacrifice personal pleasures for raising children.

Man, you sure make it sound like making and raising kids has gotta be some kinda joyless martyrdom. My kids are still quite young, so maybe I’m naively unaware of what’s around the corner, but so far, my take on family would be that the kids have been the result and source of plenty of personal pleasure. Uh-oh. Having my cake and eating it, too, I guess. Well, maybe you can lobby to get happily-married parents like me shifted into a higher tax bracket and divert some of my income to support those folks who find parenting to be such a slog … Hey, I know, since they’re free of the ‘burden’ of having kids, there must be loads of homosexuals around with extra time on their hands. Why isn’t the government subsidizing them to go help clean jonathan’s house and look after his brood? C’mon, society, let’s show our support!

“Outside of religion I wouldnâ€™t argue that homosexuality is good or bad. Iâ€™d argue that it simply is.”

“If you are willing to acknowledge its existence then (again, outside of religious considerations) society needs to decide if it is going to try to encourage these people to:
– Remain celibate
– Attempt to have heterosexual relationships
– Have long term homosexual relationships
– Have short term homosexual relationships”

I don’t see how society can decide (can “society” decide?) to encourage or discourage without having a discussion as to whether or not it is good or bad.

I donâ€™t see how society can decide (can â€œsocietyâ€ decide?) to encourage or discourage without having a discussion as to whether or not it is good or bad.

How does society decide that raising children is good? You might assume it is because many religions value it but I can assure you that isn’t the reason why the government has tax incentives to raise your children or why there are public schools.

Apply simple cost/benefit analysis and see what benefits society. Many “social ills” have a financial cost that society bears. If homosexuals enter into heterosexual marriages that end in divorce at a greater rate than average then there is a cost to society associated with it. If homosexuals kill themselves because they are conflicted over the treatment they receive from their fellow saints there is a cost associated with it. If homosexuals enter stable long term relationships and thus avoid the ills classically associated with a “homosexual lifestyle” then you can make estimates of how much this situation benefits society versus the alternatives.

You could also attack it from a purely religious view and rank the options according to what religion tells you. But you also have to then take reality into account and realize that many people are not going to select two of those options.

Nick said: “For example, the majority of Americans in the 19th century held the opinion that plural marrage was â€œbad,â€ based upon their own narrow, bigotted religious views. This judgment was used as an excuse to unjustly persecute believers in an unpopular religion at the time.”

Not a good example, Nick. Because I agree with most of what you say, I really want you to find a better example. Not all of us are eager to defend polygamy, and in fact the reasons why society might deem a behavior “bad” according to your definitions (“Does [it] infringe upon the property rights of others? Does [it] threaten the safety of others who do not consent and/or participate?”) happen to apply to polygamy. Welfare fraud is significant in modern polygamy and DOES impact property rights of others. The Warren Jeffs case (one of several) has indeed shown that many young people had their safety put at risk and their marriage/sexual choices coerced. That’s bad behavior.

Your other examples are good (elderly couples, infertile couples), but this one doesn’t work.

“How does society decide that raising children is good? You might assume it is because many religions value it but I can assure you that isnâ€™t the reason why the government has tax incentives to raise your children or why there are public schools.”

Or that there is a cost benefit to having stable traditional marriage and families.

There is evidence that tinkering with the idea of what marriage and family means has definite consequences that will impact our society as a whole.

Or that there is a cost benefit to having stable traditional marriage and families.

Exactly my point! Reread my comment if you don’t believe it. So then you need to take a rational took at how society should treat homosexuals.

The article you link to uses some pretty weak logic. I would suggest that society should continue to give incentives to stable traditional marriages. Society could also give incentives to stable homosexual relationships if it decided that the alternatives are worse for society. This could be done without directly weakening the incentives for traditional marriages. If you believe that sexual orientation is not plastic then the two incentives should not interfere with one another.

I think that sexual orientation is plastic in some cases, other cases not (how’s that for alienating everybody).

The protection of marriage as a traditional institution may be a stronger incentive than what the government is capable of doing (as Nick pointed out, I am a conservative, I don’t TRUST the government).

Yup, if you’re opposed to equal civil rights for gays, you’re better off just grumpily conceding defeat now for whatever reasons best help you through the agony, rather than expending any more energy on a rearguard defense of your untenable position. Settle on your scapegoats for this particular loss and move on to battles with better odds. Those in the main opposition on this issue aren’t getting any younger. If you listen, Mr. Anderson, you can hear the sound of inevitability in this small change.

All the government can provide are external incentives. If they are meaningless to you then live your life without regard for them. I’m certainly not married because of external incentives, though there are some on the margins that probably are.

Chino Blanco #148 Just so we are clear I do not define marriage as a civil right. I do not believe that citizenship requires marriage nor do I believe that marriage requires citizenship. Perhaps you would be willing to provide, as defined by current law within the USA, what right are denied to homosexuals? And why you are sure that homosexuality is the cause of such loss of rights. Please reference for example the â€œConstitution of the United States of Americaâ€.

If you are a believer in homosexuality please tell my your â€œReasonâ€.

Uh, because it exists. At least, that’s what my gay friends tell me.

This reminds me of those Christians who refuse to believe it when a Mormon tells them “hey, I’m Christian, too” … as if they’ve got any say in the matter of how Mormons see themselves (quite insane really).

Oh well, I guess I’m probably guilty of the same thing. You no doubt consider yourself “conservative”, but I refuse to call anyone “conservative” who’d sacrifice states rights on the altar of their own bigotry. When I see these yahoos trying to use the Federal gov’t to limit some group’s freedoms, a group that’s never threatened my freedoms, pardon me, but they’re doing nothing to “conserve” any of the meaning or value of our American way of life.

[…] path is heterosexual marriage. Iâ€™ve been following the discussion here and Iâ€™m also following a similar discussion on Mormon Mentality prompted by the recent changes in the honor code at BYU. It just so happens […]

There are in the history of man many people many that find joy in acts of selfishness through child abuse, murder, cheating, stealing from the poor and a raft of other things. What I have asked for is a benefit to society (not selfish benefits) to justify demanding “equal” status from society. Do you understand the difference between sacrifice and selfishness? In case you donâ€™t; selfishness is satisfying self wants, needs, passions and desires of the few before or in spite of the greater needs of society or the many.

Let me give an example of something. The “Reason” for basketball is to score. Now a basketball player may not always score when they have the ball but every thing they do with or around the basketball boils down to being able to score more points than the opponent. Now if there is someone that want to play basketball but the “reason” they play is to never score ever so much that they refuse to consider the joy of scoring but they still demand not just to play basketball but to make sure the public knows that they play with no intention to score – that is a little silly to say the lest but if someone comes along and says that these non-scorer basketball players have a right to as much pay, cheering and appreciation by society as every other player then I think they are worse than silly they are nutty and a little crazy. I am sorry that my being truthful about how I see it in this matter upsets you so.

The “reason” for sex is reproduction and preservation of the species. Now when I say that, some nut job asked the insane question “Do you only have sex when you are trying to reproduce”. This avoids the underpinning necessity of sex and why it exists. It ignores the consistence of behaviors, examples and the symbiotic relationship society must have to preserves itself thought regeneration of life.

I realize that many homosexuals do many good things in life to society â€“ but homosexuality just ainâ€™t one of them. For every benefit a person does for society I believe good society must encourage â€“ likewise there is no need to encourage that for which there is not benefit. Homosexuality is not a benefit to society. Those that benefit from something have every right to support such that benefits them but they have no right to demand that everyone else that is not benefited also must support that for which they do not benefit. That is not agency it is not LDS doctrine but it is the distortion of terrorism and oppression in its most evil form.

Actually, I’m asking Jonathan to consider whether society should encourage certain types of living arrangements or whether he prefers that society ignore these relationships entirely. Of course it doesn’t matter because he won’t respond.

“I think the benefits to society in recognizing and encouraging long-term, monogamous gay relationships are both numerous and significant. Even if we only examine the question from the viewpoint of public health, there are several benefits to be gained for society.”

â€œI think the benefits to society in recognizing and encouraging long-term, monogamous gay relationships are both numerous and significant. Even if we only examine the question from the viewpoint of public health, there are several benefits to be gained for society.â€

I don’t see how marriage, especially in today’s philanderous and divorce happy society, will accomplish this goal. It certainly hasn’t in the heterosexual community. Monogamy and long-term are hardly required, or even the norm, in marriage. The public health issues have little, if anything, to do with the inablility for same sex couples to marry.

“all youâ€™ve been asked, if anything, is to stop trying to impose your religious views on those who donâ€™t share them.”

unfortunatey nick,

those that have the “truth” will fight to the death that they are right and you are wrong with no regard to what you believe is truth. they forget that you have freedom of conscience. they forget that you have the right not to believe in god. and they forget that their “religious opinions [should never] prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.”

I’m sorry that fine people like yourself have to prove that you are worthy of the same rights that most people in this county enjoy freely.

Glad to see you are back. I was still hoping to get a response to this

Nick,

â€œI think the benefits to society in recognizing and encouraging long-term, monogamous gay relationships are both numerous and significant. Even if we only examine the question from the viewpoint of public health, there are several benefits to be gained for society.â€

May I remind everyone of the words of our former Prophet, Seer, and Revelator Spencer W. Kimball:

â€œHow like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky, sweet berry. Once rooted, it sticks and grows a leaf, a branch, a plant. It never starts mature and full grown. It is always transplanted an infant. Nor does immorality begin in adultery or perversion. Those are full grown plants. Little indiscretions are the berries indiscretions like sex thoughts, sex discussions, passionate kissing. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and petting and such, growing with every exercise.â€

While little twigs have never personally been a problem for me, it is not too difficult to infer from this the abominable form of this full grown plant of perversion — I shudder to even think it.

I imagine that you are not interested in hearing any arguments to your position from a religious perspective. So then the question is, is there a non-morality based argument against same-sex marriage?

Now, I would be the first to admit that I am not the best person to make this argument, but there are reasons to protect the institution of marriage to the exclusion of opening the institution of marriage to groups of people other than a man and a woman.

Marriage is not simply a bundle of benefits, the denial of which then somehow becomes a denial of “civil rights.” If marriage was simply a bundle of rights, shouldn’t it be extended to any “household?”, two widows living together, a parent and an adult handicapped child, roommmates, all could benefit from the institution of marriage. But all those arguments, and also the “civil rights” argument ignore that reason which marriage exists in the first place.

-Does marriage make babies? Of course. Are the babies made in marriage better off than those that are a result of sexual activity outside of marriage. Yes

– Does society need babies? There are any number of reasons why for society to flourish it must replace itself. A good article that explains some of the issues in population decline (specifically low fertility and immigration) is found here. UN Population Essay

-Do babies need mothers and fathers? Again, without citing specific research, kids raised by the biological parents are at a huge advantage to the alternative.

So will redefining marriage change it? Will it be damaged? Will the kids suffer?

Of course. Change the public meaning of the institution and you change the institution itself. Same-sex marriage, or any other redefinition of marriage then removes the societal basis to endorse marriage at all. Providing the benefits of marriage “civil rights” to non-husband/wife will not lift the unmarried to a higher level, it will simply demote the husband and wife relationship down to an insignificant (in the eyes of society) just-another-arraignment. The legal status provided to marriage will simply be removed.

To quote Maggie Gallagher

“If the idea of marriage really does matter – if society really does need a social instiution that manages the opposite-sex attractions in the interests of children and society – then taking an already weakened social institution, subjecting it to radical new redefinitions, and hoping that there are no consequences is probably neither a wise nor a compassionate idea.”

I mean we are talking about an almost completely universal institution that predates the benefits which are used to make the “civil rights” argument.

It doesn’t take a particularly acute observer to see the effects of a weakened marriage institution, mostly as a result of the sexual revolution.

And answer to an anticipated argument

Does this mean that male/female couple who are not capable of having children be restricted from marriage. No, because their marriage does not redefine (and in so damage) traditional marriage, it simply is a non-productive marriage of the old fashion sort.

I agree that there might be unanticipated consequences to allowing civil unions. The, “we don’t know what things will end up like,” argument is vague but somewhat persuasive. It is an appeal to classical conservatism. What we have right now might not be ideal, but the alternative might be much worse in some way we can’t predict, right?

However you are still attacking the issue from only one side. So far nobody will respond to my assertion that there might be benefits to society if we select to not ignore homosexual relationships.

I’ve acknowledged what I see as your argument. I think you make so logical leaps in your last comment. For example, I lived in MA without my marriage being destroyed. Will you engage with what I’ve said?

Of course [MA’s] redefinition of marriage has not changed the internal (your and your wifeâ€™s definition). But the relationship between the state of MA and its residents has.

Anyway, Mac, sorry, but you must promise to never, ever again accuse anyone of missing the point. People are starting to get upset, and I’m trying to help you out by letting you know that you’ve somehow apparently missed out on the last 200 years of cultural evolution. As such, successful interaction with those of us here sharing space with you in the 21st century might present a special challenge to you. Don’t give up, just be aware of your own unique challenges …

Case in point:

If marriage was simply a bundle of rights, shouldnâ€™t it be extended to any â€œhousehold?â€, two widows living together, a parent and an adult handicapped child, roommmates …

Can you appreciate how insulting the above is to couples who married for love? “Love” being one of those terms apparently lost in the 200-year gulf between us and you.

(Not to mention to widowed flatmates, parents of handicapped children, and roommates. Have you heard any of these groups clamoring to redefine their friendship or parenthood as “marriage”? If I’ve missed this, please bring me up to speed.)

I congratulate anyone whose marriage produces babies. You have society’s eternal gratitude. You also have a baby. Which some people will never have, whether by destiny or design, but which, in either case, is really none of your concern, daddy, so you might want to consider worrying less about your relationship with the state of Massachusetts and more deeply about what it is in your inane ideas that makes them so insulting.

If there is going to be a discussion about the expansion of the legal definition of marriage, to include creating a civil right, then it is totally fair to consider the reason why traditional marriage has any legal status in the first place.

I’ll restate, since I can probably do it better given a second chance. I propose that society benefits from marriage in many ways that have nothing to do with children. There are public health benefits, financial benefits, and others. I could make a somewhat detailed list if you’d like, but I think you’d agree that having adult women and men pair up and support one another and agree to a special exclusive relationship benefits society. It is because of these reasons in addition to the one that you focus exclusively on that society decides to give incentives for marriage.

Now, a significant percentage of the members of society are homosexual. Because of this a traditional heterosexual marriage arrangement is less appealing to them despite its innate advantages and the incentives society provides on top of those advantages. My question for you is what should society do in this situation?

All of the above logic that suggests that society should support long term mutually supportive heterosexual unions applies to homosexual unions as well. It has public health benefits. It combats poverty. It allows people to have someone they can depend on in emergencies. In short it eliminates many of the ways in which people left on their own can become a burden to society.

So do you agree that society should look at the costs and benefits of various homosexual relations? Are long term stable homosexual relationships good for society? If so should society ignore these relationships and hope that they happen on their own or should it provide some incentives? What incentives would be appropriate?

Personally I’m in favor of civil unions. If you can find a church that will marry you then you can have a religious marriage and a civil union.

What I am saying is the legal sanctification of marriage exists to promote those aspects of marriage which contribute to a stable society, namely the development of the next generation.

If the legal definition of marriage is changed, then the reason for giving it any special legal status is no longer.

Is it in the state’s interest to prevent non-procreative couples from marrying? No. But it isn’t in the interest of the state to extend legal recognition to them either (in my humble opinion).

Will redefining marriage effectively undermine the basic reasons for giving legal recognition to marriage, I think so. Unfortunately, the only way to prove one way or another is to do it and observe the results. But once that is done, there is no backsies. It will not be possible to take back the consequences.

The most instructive example is the effect of the welfare system, which has removed the responsibilities of paternity, and the examples of the negative social impact are too many to count.

Again, I do not think it is clear that the raising of children is the bulk of the reason for societal promotion of heterosexual marriage. I think that there are clear benefits to society that have nothing to do with children.

Should society only give marriage benefits to couples that are actively raising children? Should those benefits all go away when you have no more minor dependents?

There are a whole set of rights and benefits associated with marriage that have nothing to do with children. In fact, the list of rights and benefits surrounding children is relatively short.

I agree that children are important. I do not see how you can say that they are all important and that the debate about long term relationships needs to be centered on the topic of pro-creation. I think that you’ve found the one distinction between the two relationships and have given it disproportionate weight in order to make your argument.

Can you make an argument that doesn’t depend on children? What is the harm in society providing incentives for long term homosexual relationships?

your own deity and scriptures VIOLATE “my” claims as to the purpose of marriage

You will have to do a little (well ok, a lot of) explaining. I don’t see in anyway how the scriptural account of Adam and Eve invalidates the argument for procreation being an objective of marriage (is that what you are saying?)

But it is neither her nor there, because I was talking about the legal, not biblical, grounds for sanctified marriage.

Again, I do not think it is clear that the raising of children is the bulk of the reason for societal promotion of heterosexual marriage. I think that there are clear benefits to society that have nothing to do with children.

There are social benefits to a lot of things, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they should be codified into law. The legal basis for marriage law is very much about paternity and its legal responsabilities.

Should society only give marriage benefits to couples that are actively raising children? Should those benefits all go away when you have no more minor dependents?

Which benefits? Tax benefits, they do. Education benefits, they do. The list goes on. These benefits do go away when the minor children do. Yes, I am ok with that.

There are a whole set of rights and benefits associated with marriage that have nothing to do with children. In fact, the list of rights and benefits surrounding children is relatively short.

Things that can’t be handled with wills or power of attorney? Do they require marriage, or even civil unions?

I agree that children are important. I do not see how you can say that they are all important and that the debate about long term relationships needs to be centered on the topic of pro-creation. I think that youâ€™ve found the one distinction between the two relationships and have given it disproportionate weight in order to make your argument.

The dis proportionality of procreation to the argument is certainly a matter of opinion.

Can you make an argument that doesnâ€™t depend on children? What is the harm in society providing incentives for long term homosexual relationships?

I don’t think there is a reason for the state to get involved in providing incentives for or against.

I should add that I’m happy to admit that some legal recognition of homosexual relationships might lead to fewer cases of mixed orientation marriages and thus fewer children. I am not sure what I think of mixed orientation marriages. I admire couples that approach them with their eyes wide open. It isn’t something I would want for myself. Anecdotally, my experience is that usually one party is not aware that they are in a mixed orientation marriage and that it ends badly. Of course I only hear about the ones that end badly and not the ones that go well, right?

I don’t know. My first reaction, to your last comment, is that it seems like the reasons for entering a mixed orientation marriage are more complex than simply the lack of legal recognition for the alternative. Even though it was qualified with “fewer.”

I have to say again though, I am not making the argument that

marriage must equal children

BUT

Society has interest in healthy children and that marriage is give legal status to that end.

If marriage is redefined to mean “benefits package” then the underlying reason for legal status is changed. Then it doesn’t matter if it is a homosexual couple, or an adult child and parent, or a couple of friends, or what ever non-procreative relationship you want. You are an adult, here is your benefits coupon, everybody gets one.

and why not? why shouldn’t an honest, contributing member of society not be able to enjoy the same benefits that you enjoy?

Because marriage is not simply a benefits package. It is legal condition to insure that paternity is established and creates a recognized relationship between husband and wife and their children, in the eyes of the state

Of course, there is also a part (again part, not all) of â€œstraight cultureâ€ which is all about not having long-term stable relationships. That â€œpartâ€ is primarily made up of young men, particularly high school and college aged. ;-)

True, except the period you describe can arguably be considered short term.

Seriously though, you are certainly correct that there are many gay men who have zero interest in a long-term stable partnership, let alone monogamy. Iâ€™d like you to consider, however, that this is in part due to the fact that gay marriage has been denied. Our culture has given essentially zero support to encourage or enhance such relationships. Many gay men react to this sort of societal rejection by flauting â€œall the rules,â€ engaging in innumerable acts with innumerable partners, and often engaging in additional high-risk behaviors, such as drug abuse. When you feel like youâ€™ll be condemned by others, no matter WHAT you do, you tend to respond by rejecting structure and norms until you reach an â€œanything goesâ€ attitude.

I have no idea, I have to take you at your word. But I agree that less “lack of stability” is better.

If gay marriage was legal and accepted by society, the same social pressures would apply to gay relationships as to straight. Promiscuous gay men would be looked down upon, while gay men who â€œsettled downâ€ with a lifetime partner would become role models, especially to younger gay men. A new â€œnormâ€ for what you call â€œgay cultureâ€ would emerge (although that has already begun, to some extent).

Again, legal marriage does not exist primarily to reduce promiscuity, but to give legal status to offspring.

The implications for public health could well be staggering. The incidence of STDs would by very likely to drop significantly. The rate of crystal meth use among gay men (all too common in the subset you mention) would likely drop as the responsibilities of â€œfamily lifeâ€ helped gay men make more considered choices.

“Family life” no longer requires legal sanctification. The rest is housekeeping. You worry about your house, I’ll scold all the randy high school who are chasing the cheerleaders behind the bleechers, mmmmkay (is there a way to assign gender to cheerleader? Cheergirl?).

In addition, MAC, the added stability which marriage imparts (notwithstanding divorce rates) is, as you mention, good for children. While estimates vary, it appears that 8 to 10 million children in the United States are currently being raised in gay or lesbian households. Even if you choose to condemn the relationship of the parenting couple, MAC, surely you believe those children deserve the same family rights and protections that other children enjoy.

I don’t know that any of kids exist in legal limbo. For the most part, they are all in a legal parent/child relationship.

I appreciate your willingness to participate in this discussion. I agree that raising children is an important aspect of marriage. I do not agree that it is the foundation for legal sanction of marriage. I don’t think you’ve presented any historical or legal evidence that this is the case.

Even if that were the case there is a compelling argument (Nick states it well in 230) for providing some form of recognition of homosexual unions. These relationships look very similar to marriages expect for the natural ability to procreate. I understand that you consider that difference to be a show stopper. In my mind it is a reason to distinguish between “marriage” and “civil union”.

I do not see how granting civil union rights to homosexual couples would remove the basis for the special legal status of marriage. It seems to me that the two arrangements appeal to two separate groups of people and they shouldn’t interfere with one another.

At this point I think we understand each other’s position and we’re talking in circles. I’m willing to give it a rest.

Apparently, Sarah Barringer Gordon (interviewed in the recent PBS documentary), in the final chapter of her book The Mormon Question, argues that, in its opposition to SSM, the modern LDS church has adopted the anti-polygamy reasoning of its 19th-century enemies. h/t to Kaimi and Rob Lauer on Sunstone’s PBS thread

It does seem particularly disgraceful, hypocritical and cowardly for Mormons to argue against SSM, given their history. And, sorry, Margaret, but I don’t see how pointing to your own dim view of polygamy in any way deflects the charge of institutional hypocrisy.

Anyway, just sounded to me like that last chapter in Gordon’s book might be of interest to some of the folks here.

from the PBS site:

Gordon is the Arlin M. Adams professor of constitutional law and a professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania. She is author of The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in 19th-Century America

To describe the “same for everyone” argument as spurious is inaccurate and belies the nuance of Elder Jensen’s statement.

This kind of overreaching makes it difficult to consider Nick’s position.

Here is the Elder’s Jensen’s entire response, for context

… What is the official position of the church on homosexuality?

… Our position on that is that there is a single standard actually of morality for all members of the church, and that essentially is that we abstain from all sexual relationships and sexual relations prior to marriage. Once we do marry, we are loyal, completely loyal, to our marital partner, and that the only marriage sanctioned by God is of a man to a woman. As Paul said, “Neither is a man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord.”

So there is really no allowance within our doctrine for a homosexual relationship of woman to woman or man to man. Obviously that creates a lot of pain. It has created a lot of pain for me just because I’ve known some of these wonderful people who have these feelings, who have these thoughts, who have these desires, and I’ve worked with them in my official capacity as a church leader. … I’ve sat with those that have tried for years to transition to a more traditional way of life and who haven’t been able to produce those feelings in themselves that would permit them honestly to marry. …

The thing that we have to ultimately say … is, yes, there’s nature; yes, there’s nurture; but there’s also agency. We all have the capacity and power to choose. If you’re going to live your life within the framework of the Gospel, within the framework of our doctrine, then you’ve got to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and if you can’t do that honestly, then your choice has to be to live a celibate life. That is a very difficult choice for the parents, for the young man, the young woman, for whoever’s making that choice, and my heart goes out to them. I think we’re asking a tremendous amount of them.

And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we’re not asking more of them than we’re asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they’re going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn’t have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing.

We, again, as a church need to be, I think, even more charitable than we’ve been, more outreaching in a sense. A religion produces a culture, and culture has its stereotypes, has its mores. It’s very difficult, for instance, in our culture not to be a returning missionary. What about the young man who chooses not to go, or the parents who marry and for whatever reasons don’t have children, or the young woman who grows old without marrying, or the divorced person? I think we can be quite hard — in a sense unwittingly, but nevertheless hard — on those people in our culture, because we have cultural expectations, cultural ideals, and if you measure up to them, it’s a wonderful life. If you don’t, it could be very difficult. â€¦

While apostles are sustained as â€œprophets, seers and revelators,â€ the statements of an individual apostle do not carry the authority that the president of the church does, to actually define or declare doctrine.

Is that true? Is there a “seniority factor” that somehow affects one’s ability to receive revelation even though the Twelve are sustained alike as “prophets, seers and revelators”?

Maybe I should just ignore anything the 6 least senior Apostles have to say on any topic, and wait until they reach positions 1 thru 6, seniority-wise, before I put too much stock into what they have to say… ;-)

Wouldn’t a statement by an apostle stand as a pretty good doctrinal default when no statement has been made to the contrary? I see no contradiction to the scriptures, as I’ve mentioned before. Add to this Wickman’s statement (that was likely given review prior to posting on the church’s website):

Umm… I’m not so good with the html. I’ll put brushing up on my “to do” for the weekend. :-)

Here’s the Wickman quote: “Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.”

What Nick is getting at, and he can correct me if I’m wrong, is that an apostle when speaking on his own is not definitively speaking doctrine. The president of the church is the only person who individually holds the keys to revelation on behalf of the entire church. Even then, on most important issues, the doctrine will be presented in unanimity as the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 before it becomes doctrine. To become cannon, it must then be sustained by the body of the church.

Iâ€™m not saying if Elder Holland is right or wrong. Iâ€™m just saying that just because Elder Holland is an apostle doesnâ€™t mean that every word from his mouth is absolutely true doctrine. Your mind will explode if you try and reconcile every statement on every subject by every apostle, even without including all apostles in previous generations.

I don’t dispute what everyone is saying about how doctrines are established as doctrines, become canonical, resolving disputes among various general authorities, etc. But, there is no apparent dispute anywhere among the leadership of the church. The default doctrinal position ought to reside with those whose calling it is to teach and interpret the scriptures, and is that homosexuality is a mortal condition. To claim that those who interpret the scriptures at odds with your view are “wresting the scriptures” is amusing when the implication is that your view is authoritative and the general authorities mentioned are the ones guilty of wresting the scriptures (presuming, of course, that they read the scriptures as consistent with their views publicized on the church website and elsewhere).

You can believe what you want, but your calling a view shared by multiple general authorities and disputed by none “false doctrine” seems a little bit laughable.

Nick, you’ve been abundantly clear in repeating the same legalistic view of doctrine that I often see on the blogs. It’s consistent with a recent news release from the church itself in which the point is made, “A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.” I have no problem with that and I completely agree with that.

However, when a topic has not been clarified one way or the other by the president of the church, it is certainly reasonable to give merit to statements by multiple general authorities consistent with multiple other church publications over the years and the scriptures (far more than you have been willing to acknowledge, and which I think I’ll post about some time). I don’t care if we use the word doctrine (it was you who called it “false doctrine,” which is certainly unwarranted given no DENIAL by the president of the church over the pulpit in conference if you want to be so legalistic about it). But provisional doctrine, or default doctrine, or whatever non-binding non-legalistic way one may want to refer to the concept, it carries far more weight than your opinion and is far more likely to be doctrine if and when such an affirmation takes place officially. Your disparaging of views by others on this post and recent ones elsewhere is just unsupportable.

I think I’ve “grasped your point” all along, but you can try to be clearer and clearer in repeating yourself if you like.

I should clarify that I’m not really interested in a legalistic description of “false doctrine” either, so I should have left off that reference to “denial” over the pulpit in that last comment (which I recognize is not necessary). I’ll let you know if I ever post my thoughts on why I think the scriptures make it abundantly clear that same gender attraction will only be in this life.

I appreciate the discussion, Nick. In reading back through the discussion, you’ve explained yourself very well while I’ve had a hard time conveying my thoughts and my frustrations have been evident. Many apologies for that. Thank you for your patience.

I am told that there have been responses to my question of benefit to society that come as a direct result of homosexual relationships. The only response at an attempt of benefit is that a poster said the homosexual relationships bring happiness to those homosexuals and that is a benefit to society.

I responded that there is no benefit to society in selfishness. Being happy with one’s self is not a benefit to society. I have not fostered any ill towards any person. All that I have said is that if there no homosexual sex in the world for 1000 years there would be no failing or ending of society. Because there is no benefit to society there is no loss to society should it go away. There is no reason to think homosexuality is beneficial. We cannot make that same statement about heterosexual behavior (though some insist the two have equal value). If there was no heterosexual behavior in the world for 1000 years there would be no human society. Dah!!

The two are not the same and should not be thought of as the same â€“ If someone thinks that homosexual behavior is as important to human society as heterosexual behavior then yes I think they are a nut job. I do not think they are capable of reason.

Regarding polygamy being legal somedayâ€¦.Sometimes I wonder if this is the motivation behind the church announcement to fight against same sex marriages. If SSM were to be legalized, then wouldnâ€™t polygamy be next? What would the church do then? Just a thought…

Not to be critical, and I think that you just want to expand the discussion, but…

I noticed that you have twice encouraged people to look up two-spirit people. I don’t know that many modern Native people appreciate their history being used to promote any particular argument. Especially where there is little distinction between individual tribal customs.

Essentially, there are a lot of tribes who have said that they either 1) don’t have this in their history and are tired of it being described as a “native” idea and or 2) for those tribes which do have this tradition, that it is more complex social/gender idea than how it is being used in the current gay rights discussion (generally, not this post).

The “origins of the recognition of the legal implications of marriage” occurred when theocracy, or at least state sanctioned religion, was the prevailing power structure. It also occurred when the social environment, including that of sexuality, was vastly different than today. The disillusion of marriage was illegal back then until a King decided he would rather not kill off his wife in the usual manner of ending a marriage. He then created his own state sponsored religion and changed the legal definition of marriage. Some nobility in some areas even laid claim to brides on their wedding night. Thank goodness legal marriage is different now. Even marriage being about happiness is a relatively recent development. I’d say marriage today is vastly different than at the time of the origins in marriage, even without considering same sex couples.

In short (too late), I don’t buy that marriage should be the same as when it was legally instituted or that it is a valid argument against SSM.

Mac–I don’t know why I would want to expand the discussion. I’m a little surprised that it has gone as long as it has. I have participated very little in the last hundred comments.

Sorry, but I had forgotten that I had referred to “Two Spirit People” earlier. One of my gay friends, who associates frequently with Native Americans, told me about the concept, and I simply found it interesting.

But it doesn’t answer the question that I posed earlier which is why does secular recognition of marriage exist in the first place.

My answer being that it creates a socially and legally recognized structure that best protects and raises the children which are the product of sex. That the social/legal interest in marriage is primarily for that reason, otherwise lets just do away with legal marriage entirely and let whoever sanction our marriage do so, but the state doesn’t need to be involved at all.

Or to state it in a different fashion, is the social interest in promoting and protecting marriage primarily to benefit the individuals being married or the offspring come from that marriage (in a social capital sense).

I am not making the argument that marriage is all about “perpetuation of the species.” But I am repeating myself, please go back and read my previous comments if you are interested.

Nick,

is that being a gay man may provide a bit of freedom from traditional â€œmaleâ€ behavior, but itâ€™s certainly not the same thing as being a man who wants to be a woman. This â€œtwo-spiritâ€ concept seems more akin to the latter.

That is an example of exactly what I mean, there has been an unfair use of the Native idea of two-spirited people. There have been attempts by people to co-opt this idea, infuse into the current debate surrounding gay marriage and modern gay issues generally. It is certainly not universal among tribes and there is little actual evidence about what “it” actually was. But there has been certainly a dearth of input from Native peoples themselves, many of whom would prefer to have their culture left out of this part of the culture war.

I can’t help but notice that for some reason this comment thread does not subside. I haven’t been following it really, at all … at least not anytime recently. But just out of curiosity, I went and looked at a few things to try and understand a little about what is going on …

First of all, this post was published almost a month ago. Since then there have been THIRTY-FIVE posts published. None of them have received this kind of continual attention.

Obviously this post is important for some reason, or at least it is important to some people. So I’m going to have to go through and read the whole damn thing and try to see what kind of patterns there are or what kind of arguments there are … that would make it go on and on and on like this.

Go back and read almost all of the comments that I made, I was not making a religious argument.

If the debate about gay marriage is non-existent, then we are in agreement? No legal sanctioning of gay marriage?

I don’t agree that all or even most of the opposition is as a result of one particular faith tradition.

Since the opposition to gay marriage is the majority opinion in this country, I would prefer to call it “democracy” instead of “power grab.” Power grab would be better used to describe judicial actions legalizing gay marriage in spite of legislative majorities.

I do so appreciate your humble admonition and willingness to educate someone so unexposed and ignorant as myself. Your graciousness overwhelms me.

That’s your argument? I should follow the “Mormon Creed” and mind my own business?

Did you expect to comment on a Mormon blog and have no one respond? They should just mind their own business?

I will freely concur that my primary objection to gay marriage is moral. but that certainly doesn’t invalidate the other reasons to object, which have been discussed in length. There are valid, non-moral, non-religious reasons to object to gay marriage.

The argument that I made was that the justification for the legal/societal recognition of marriage exist to create the structure which allows the best results for its next generation.

Whether or not a marriage results in children is immaterial.

Why the state would have any reason to inject itself into a personal matter is the question. It is obvious that you are interested in reducing legal marriage into a bundle of rights. This view is simplistic and incomplete.

Nick, most people who argue on the blogs will stop after awhile – satisfied that they made their point and having other things to do. There are 308 comments on this thread and 50+ of them are yours. If you haven’t been able to make your point by now I don’t know if you ever will.

Since the thread has long past derailed, I have a question for you. Would you be satisfied with civil unions or some other legal recognition of interdependent relationships (perhaps not limited to SSM) provided the recognition had with it the same rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage? However you respond, would you have a guess as to what percentance of same sex couples feel the same way you do?

While I support a lot of what you have said, and I appreciate your comments, I have to take issue with this remark, “The LDS are free to believe as they are told to.” This statement is one gigantic contradiction, that I am sure was done intentionally. If you feel that the LDS church is such a dictatorship where all of the lemmings are told what to believe, why are you even bothering to post here?

While I don’t understand why heavenly father has allowed individuals to have attractions that when acted upon are deemed “immoral”, I know that acting upon them is immoral. I am glad that I don’t have to reconcile, what seems like an entirely unfair hand to be dealt. That being said, I am fully supportive of some sort of civil union for homosexuals. Additionally, I think what Elder Jensen said is telling and true. I sympathize with your plight, but yet while difficult the policy of the church is simple and true on this subject. You can’t have it both ways.

Wow! 316 comments. I’d like to thank each and every one of you for making this MM’s most prolificly commented on post. But isn’t it getting a little silly by this time? It feels like a very zesty ping pong game.

I must warn you, I am rather prolific on the e-mailing and drive people crazy, but I have some questions.

This is how I got friends with DKL.

Nick, why is it necessary to have a legal document for your commitment to be formalized? It’s nothing but a short ceremony. You can have the ceremony and legally sign over your good to your partner. There’s very little benefit that you gain from the actual certificate.

Which is why I now advocate having a fake marriage without the certificate for all couples with non member relatives and the real deal next day in the temple. Really, how much does that piece of paper affect the actual ceremony or commitment.

I think you are wanting or hoping for formal RECOGNITION from church and state. Give that up, somebody’s right, not gonna happen. Do a quick first step, accept your powerlessness, and commit in your heart where it really matters.

Frankly, if I didn’t have kids and grandkids and all my obligations, I’d never want to marry. Also I love my husband, although he’s a nuisance much of the time. But take my word for it, marriage is over-rated.

MAC–come back as often as you like. I originated the post (Joven= Young), and I plan to include it on my CV (resume) forever–unless someone can get something started which would bring in 400 comments or more. Isn’t there something else that people are dying to comment on? We passed the “Global Warming” conversation in comments a few days ago. What else gets people eager to comment? Can we do some kind of personal attacks? Oh, looking back–we just did…
And I don’t use the word d*&$%m. That’s a rarely spoken dialect of Zanzibar which means “tasty and thoughtful.”

What’s with the multiple personalities folks? It seems woefully unfair to the neophytes or the uninitiated.

Let me see if I can come up with some alternate, yet equally charged topics. It will probably be a challenge since, to be honest, sex sells. Even Zanzibar is tangentially on topic, remember Freddy Mercury?

But race is a close second. Ecclesiastical abuse, as a subtheme, seems to be woven through many of the posts and appears to get the hackles up. I am sure that anngb and DKL will jump on that bandwagon.

Maybe they would accept a guest posting on that certain kind of illiberal and bloggernaclely distinct political correctness which rears it’s head in comments like “its best to ignore” or (no offense given or taken) “this just seems silly.”

MAC–I am SO prepared to talk about race/priesthood restriction, etc., but I am going to ask you to avoid that subject out of respect for what I’m actually supposed to be doing with my time. See my husband’s blog about the temptation of blogging–and my own 9-step program designed just for him. (He is supposed to be writing a book on family in Shakespeare’s time.) Link: http://www.faceofother.blogspot.com . I am trying really hard to re-focus my sights. Please, don’t tempt me with the one topic I can’t resist.
I’ll check in on this conversation once in awhile, just out of curiosity. Let’s see if we can get 400 comments. Would that be an all-time high in the bloggernacle? Could we get listed in Guiness?

I am thrilled that we’re only 62 posts away from 400. We can do this!! I vote that we get more detail on how Danithew measures the effectiveness of his protest style. Is it a good idea to run naked anywhere but in Finland? What might the consequences be of running naked down Fifth Avenue, and do the benefits outweigh those? Is it only the topic of SSM (so important to include both Ses) which provokes this particular reaction? And how do Steve and Kaimi protest? What posts get the rest of us to protest wildly and without inhibition?

NICK–that’s brilliant! Post everything twice and we’ll hit the goal even sooner. And I haven’t seen Danithew naked, so I can’t say whether or not it would provoke homosexual lust. Might it actually make somebody reconsider his sexual orientation?

Okay, fifty-five to go. Why do I feel like getting out the pom poms?
I regret to inform you all that I need to go home now and help my son do a report on Tanzania. But I wanted to make a significant comment on Tanzania in relation to this conversation.
Tanzania had a remarkable Olympian named John Stephen Akhwari who competed in the 1968 Olympics (Mexico City). More than an hour after the race had been won, Akhwari entered the stadium, bloody, bandaged, limping. When asked, “Why didn’t you quit?” he said, “My country did not send me 5,000 miles to start the race. My country sent me 5,000 miles to finish the race.”

People, we are aiming for 400 comments, after which we will meet at Danithew’s house to watch him demonstrate his protest style and have Nick decide if it’s a good protest or a bad one. We will have root beer floats and pickled herring.

Remember, we are out to FINISH the race. It was not enough merely to start.

A final word to MAC before I head home:
I just passed you up as a frequent commenter. I did this strategically. Three comments in a row. Come on, Man! Follow the example of John Stephen Akhwari! You have a tiny window to pass me right here, because I will be working on a 9th grade geography report with Mr. Michael Young for the next several hours. This is your chance!

Nick, it isn’t the topic that bothers him, it’s the pointless argument. I get into those every once in awhile, where I can’t stop trying to make the other person come around to my point of view. I am into it, but it gets tiresome for everyone else. The contention gets tiresome.

I am not danithew. but the Daniel that annegb is referring to is danithew. I don’t think annegb thinks of me as a “quiet peaceful person” especially in regards to “pointless arguments” especially about politics. :)

… because you already know everything there is to know about same-sex marriage.

Thatâ€™s right, you already know everything there is to know. There are no surprises anymore, so each side of the battle is really just waiting for the other to lose steam, change its mind, or age out and die.

In case you think Iâ€™m trying to avoid engaging the arguments, here are the major talking points from both camps:

Arguments against same-sex marriage:

(1) Marriage is an institution defined historically as the union between one man and one woman.
(2) Children are optimally cared for in homes with a mother and a father.
(3) The purpose of marriage is procreation and societal stability.
(4) Same-sex marriage is an untested and dangerous social experiment.
(5) Same-sex marriage is part of a slippery slope to universal depravity.
(6) Gay relationships themselves are immoral.

Arguments against the arguments against same-sex marriage:

(1) You donâ€™t have a bit of evidence for any of that, and
(2) Please, quit being a jerk.

See? No surprises.

Now, I want to confess that Iâ€™m very gay, and the rest of this article will be biased appropriately. I also want to confess that I have no idea what marriage is. Thatâ€™s ok, though, because if we had enough time and wine, Iâ€™m pretty sure youâ€™ll discover that you donâ€™t either. This should not prove any impediment to the conversation.

You might notice that the arguments against same-sex marriage seem to be more numerous than the arguments for it. There are two reasons for that: first, most of them arenâ€™t actually arguments against; and second, arguments donâ€™t get you very far in this sort of thing anyway.

Letâ€™s start with that first part. Even though I put six things on the list, most of them arenâ€™t arguments against same-sex marriage at all. Argument (1), for example, isnâ€™t against same-sex marriage–itâ€™s for the strengthening of hetero-sex marriages. Same with (2). Argument (3) is similar, except that given the now-public knowledge that men and women donâ€™t have to be married or even in the same room to conceive a baby, it actually argues for extending marriage to anybody willing to raise a kid in tandem.

Two of them are just smoke screen distractions. Argument (4) has always sounded silly to me, because everything new is potentially dangerous, and same-sex marriage isnâ€™t untested anymore; and Argument (5) is popular among juridical thinkers, but is equally a non-starter in the real world. Really it is: why can 5th cousins but not 4th cousins be married? Because we drew the line there. Why will allowing gays to marry not automatically allow people to marry patio furniture? Because weâ€™ll draw the line there as well. Those who find themselves in a committed relationship with a wicker bistro set will have their own fight to fight. I will happily stand behind their right to love whatever they love. They, however, will be responsible for figuring out the tax implications of their blessed union.

That brings us to Argument (6): Gay relationships are themselves immoral. What can you even say to that? Nothing. Thatâ€™s when you stop the debate and see if the person wants to grab dinner one night instead. Then you move in down the street a few years later, go shopping with them, watch their dog while theyâ€™re out of town, invite them over for Super Bowl parties, call them to gossip, swap turns carpooling the kids to school, and just live. It might take five or ten years, but theyâ€™ll figure it out, without you ever saying a word.

The nice thing about the â€œagainst same-sex marriageâ€ list of arguments is that it isnâ€™t getting any longer. Theyâ€™ve had thousands of years to tell us why weâ€™re broken, and about forty years to figure out why we canâ€™t get married (the first American cases were in 1971, according to HRC). Based on what Iâ€™ve been hearing for the past 27 years of my own life, it sounds like theyâ€™ve run out of new ideas.

On the other hand, every committed same-sex couple is another argument for same-sex marriage. Every kid who comes out is another reason to quit being a jerk and let him dream of white picket fences and a family and love and all the stuff that other kids think theyâ€™ll have before they learn how the world really works.

Iâ€™m highly optimistic that over the next ten years we wonâ€™t need arguments anymore. There is no need to debate what you can plainly see: that itâ€™s love that makes a family, and the energy and breath we waste fighting over who should be a family could be much better spent supporting and encouraging the families that continue to exist whether we legally recognize them or not. It doesnâ€™t require even a minute of legal research, or a page of historical reference. It needs neither clever twists of equality doctrine nor the due process guarantee. To see that same-sex marriage should not be denied any longer takes only a single ounce of kindness.

“Please quit being a jerk” and “always sounded silly to me” are hardly convincing counter-arguments. As a matter fact they seem like attempts to shout down discussion.

Here is something a little more persuasive.

Wonderful writing credits to Margaret Somerville

Society needs marriage to establish cultural meaning, symbolism and moral values around the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, and thereby protect that relationship and the children who result from it. That is more necessary than in the past, when alternatives to sexual reproduction were not available. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would affect its cultural meaning and function and, in doing so, damage its ability and, thereby, society’s capacity, to protect the inherently procreative relationship and the children who result from it, whether those children’s’ future sexual orientation proves to be homosexual or heterosexual.

I hate this rewording. It’s so insulting I can’t even believe it. Fortunately, it does clarify that there are two differing standards of morality in the LDS Church (and BYU), despite the rhetoric otherwise. The standard for heterosexuals is to remain celibate while dating and engaging in romantic pursuits. Holding hands, kissing, and getting all cuddly are perfectly fine and acceptable per se.

But the standard for homosexuals? No touching, no holding, no kissing, no NOTHING. A dreary life without love. How pathetic! It makes me weep. And the Gay students who “helped” write this? What in the world were they thinking???

#many: Margaret, you never cease to amuse me. I am still laughing. Your sarcasm has no limits. Only 31 to go!!! Let’s see if this can drive some more responses… and return us to the original topic at hand…

#365: Connell, As one of the Gay students who “helped” write this I feel qualified to respond to this comment. First off, the LDS church does not approve of homosexual relations. We all know that. The Proclamation to the Family, etc. make it clear that our purpose is families, and that is defined as man, woman, and kids. While I recognize that society is embracing other definitions and that there are plenty of happy homosexuals couples, I am not in a position to facilitate such change. I also happen to believe in my church. Which is exactly why the rewording is exactly what we wanted. It was change that was feasible, I could drive, and it worked. The environment at BYU was not previously conducive to even struggling with this. Just telling someone that you dealt with this was grounds for getting the boot. Our goal was to make BYU a more open place where people can talk about their struggles, receive support and friendship, and not have to worry about being judged when they have done nothing wrong. Sexual orientation is not an Honor Code issue, so I can be open, honest, and up front with the way that I feel. This by no means classifies me as a sex act, or someone who–to be true to himself–must act out. Being TRUE to myself can involve that fact that I love my church and my God enough to realize that I can choose, and I choose my testimony. Sure, I get flak for this, but I’m thick-skinned. And pretty strong. It takes will, resolve, and drive to stand where I do. I can be mormon first and gay next. This doesn’t have to encompass every little tidbit of who I am. That’s not a lie, it’s not denying who I am; I love who I am and I am fine with the way that I feel. I’m not an expert, and don’t have all the answers, but I’m fine not knowing everything.

God’s in charge and he’s way smarter than me. I just have to keep taking one step, and then another, until I get back to him. And I will. No matter how long the fight, no matter how hard the journey…that’s where joy is. And to that end was I made.

This also relates to #367: Bookslinger, I don’t know that Connell is entirely copping a martyr act. I would say this to you: The comparison to heterosexuals in the church who don’t marry is NOT a fair comparison to us by any means. First, they are heterosexuals living in a heterosexual society. At any time they feasibly (not saying it will happen, but the possibility is there) can find someone, get married, and their loneliness is at an end. What the church asks of us is much, much harder. We have no end, no way out, no solution except celibacy. They at least have options and potential.

Hidden (#369), though the potential, no matter how slight, is often there, it sometimes is not there in any degree, and even when the potential exists in some minute degree, it is often “virtually” zero probability.

And yes, it is a valid comparison, because Connell is crying “no fair” when being asked “no touching/kissing/holding”, and I reply that there are millions of heterosexuals in the “no touching/kissing/holding” boat. And especially in the no _romantic_ touching/kissing/holding boat.

There are many heterosexuals whose lives are under various “different” headings, which separates them from a significant chance of finding a mate in this life.

But regardless of the probability, or the existence of possiblity, my point is that chastity, even to the degree of not having casual affectionate contact, is lived by many many heterosexuals.

I’m sorry, but connell just doesn’t earn any sympathy points from me on that item.

The Republican candidates for president in 2008 are about as clueless about reality as you can find anywhere in America today. They are the dumbest lot Republicans could possibly put up. I think that reflects more on the state of the Republican party today; they would rather have their fake hero, the one who “looks” the part, but is inside a hollow buffoon. Their thoughts on “don’t ask don’t tell” is just one of the multitude of ways in which they are far from reality.

#408, you can joke about whoever you like, just don’t expect me to join in any discussion about “Mormon Married Graduate Students on Welfare” … My only concern here is really that Mormon Mentality’s top two ‘most-commented posts’ continue to reflect a couple of personal hobby horses of mine … That, and the fact that I’ve resolved to do my part to prevent DKL from ever having any post that remains in the Top 3 for any significant amount of time.

My experience has been that only Times & Seasons is reliably available behind The Great Firewall of China â€¦ the rest of the bloggernacle appears to be mostly blocked based on casual/random attempts at accessing it from Shanghai and Beijing.

Now I came across this comment at Times & Seasons today, and apparently it is exactly the same situation in Saudi Arabia as well:

I think it is still ridiculous they are basically suffocating the college atmosphere. College is supposed to be a time of “critical thinking”, a time to open our minds and stand up for what we believe in and yet they have found a way to stunt every students growth at this school I was born and raised LDS and I am gay and I find it quite ironical that I am not accepted in something I devoted my life to just as much as heterosexuals have devoted there lives to. You can go off of whatever you want in the bible and book of mormon and choosing such references as “between a man and a woman” is just plain BIAS. I can go and read scriptures to people about how we should love our neighbors and everything else but I don’t because the scriptures are open to interpretation just like the “law” but it doesn’t mean god wanted anyone to discriminate or create a sense of fear.

“From the standpoint of economy – there is no value added (benefit) to the world from homosexuality.”

“There is no reason to support homosexuality. There is no benefit to society to support homosexuality. Without benefit there is no reason.”

First, Jonathan, I assume you accept the reality that certain individuals (between two to five percent of the population) are homosexually oriented. Second, I assume that you also accept that a homosexual orientation is usually very difficult to change, if not immutable. Given this, we can see that the decision to “support” (or not support) homosexual individuals in certain ways will not significantly impact the number of individuals who are homosexually-oriented, regardless of their hypothetical “benefit to society.” If you disagree with either of these basic assumptions, please explain your objections and I will try to address them.

Given these assumptions, it is reasonable to ask how such individuals can best contribute to society. As you have explained above, the generally accepted model for heterosexual adults is that they find an opposite-sex partner whom they wish to marry, in which context they produce and raise offspring.

However, marriage does not only benefit society by providing a context for child-rearingâ€”it also increases the happiness, security and stability of the couple themselves. Married partners can divide domestic labour effectivelyâ€”one person cooking and cleaning for two is less work than two people cooking for themselves. They share basic living expensesâ€”again, two people making joint financial decisions spend less than two people making such decisions individually. If one loses their job or has an accident, the other can help shoulder the additional burden; the net reduction in quality of living is less than it would be for a single individual. Emotionally, a loving, intimate partner is an enormous boon, to the improvement of physical, mental and spiritual well-being.

You may argue that these are “selfish benefits,” but healthier, happier, more financially stable individuals are an asset to societyâ€”indeed, they are the very essence, the building blocks, of a healthy society. Opposite-sex marriage helps to provide these benefits for heterosexual individuals. However, there is good reason to believe that marriage to an opposite-sex partner would not improve the overall well-being of homosexual individuals, due to the strain of labouring under an expectation of intimacy with a partner to whom one is not sexually attracted, or a partner who is not sexually attracted to oneself; indeed, there are numerous examples of such partnerships ending in divorce or worse. (Nick, whom you have encountered above, is a case in point.) It is far more likely for homosexual individuals to find happiness and stability in a relationship with another homosexually-oriented partner of the same sex. Thus, it would be eminently sensible for society to encourage such individuals to enter into a relationship which is analogous to heterosexual marriage, but with the affordance of a same-sex partner.

It is quite simple. A healthy, happy, stable society is composed of healthy, happy, stable individuals. Anything which benefits a significant number of individuals in a society (and a percentage greater than one in fifty is certainly significant) without severely impacting other individuals is desirable.

Also, numerous studies concerning gay parents show that same-sex couples have similar parenting outcomes to opposite-sex, married couplesâ€”the generally accepted “gold standard”. As such, gay couples are well-positioned to adopt or foster children. This in turn has an improving effect on children who would otherwise lack primary caregivers, and furthers society’s interest in raising happy, healthy children.

I think its interesting that in the book of mormon, the law during the reign of the judges could not punish man for his belief. I think the attempt to regulate or exclude people on the basis of what they believe to be morally acceptable very closely approximates satans plan to control mankind through force and the elimination of freedom. freedom to believe, and to choose, and to advocate different moralities either needs to be a part of christ’s university, or it shouldnt pretend to be christs. Establishing regulations on behavior, such as practicing homosexuality, is one thing. establishing regulations on belief and expressions of belief, is entirely different. I believe that jesus may be interested in excluding people who actively practice homo-sexuality from the byu campus, he would likely frown on expelling them based on expressions of thier morality. This is my opinion as someone who more or less knows jesus. will i get excommunicated if the church traces this to me? Talk about a culture of fear…. scary.

in the honor code it sates that basically one way to know if a behavior is accepable is to ask the question “what if everyone in society did my behavior” – a valid question to ask of the honor code itself. What if it were against the law EVERYWHERE to wear sandals, to have long hair, wear dirty clothes, or speak of homosexuality as morally acceptable. If you attempt to punish behaviors which dont violate the rights of others, you are following satans plan. If we did that we would be eliminating the CHOICE and hence the freedom of mankind and the plan of god would be frustrated, as satan knew it would be, if people were forced to do good, as he planned.

I happen to agree with Nicks’ concern about how other kids will receive her once she starts to open up about her dad.

While I am not gay, I did not have the orthodox, two parent family upbringing that most people in the church have. Instead, I grew up in and aged out of the foster care system and every time I talk about my experience I get some idiot making a comment about me and my experience that they have no right to make. She will probably experience some of the same attitudes and comments. Hopefully, she will find true friends who will be able to help her and support her as she comes to terms with not only her dads’ choices but her own. This will take time for her to sort out.

Hi,
I really agree that it is quite simple. A healthy, happy, stable society is composed of healthy, happy, stable individuals. Anything which benefits a significant number of individuals in a society without severely impacting other individuals is desirable.Thanks for sharing useful information.

I wasn’t going to add to this but I feel I should. As a heterosexual Mormon who knows and lives with one homosexual male Mormon I can’t begin to tell you of the internal struggle he faces. He has every desire that I have but toward members of his gender. He also has a testimony and intends to live by the covenants he has made. He doesn’t believe he could marry a woman and create a happy, functional, and lasting marriage. He has decided for now to date woman on occassion but knows that more than likely he will be single for the duration of his mortal existence. He hopes in the next life he can marry. I can’t understand how he feels but I CAN listen and love him just as much, if not more, then my other faithful Mormon friends. He has a heavy cross to carry. Nick, while I have to state I don’t believe the homosexual lifestyle is correct, I do hope you the best. DO WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY. We all make mistakes and we learn from them. Like I said previous, I stay away from all that is the Church except on Sundays. I live the Gospel as best I can and that is simply all I can do. Everyone knows how Mormons feel about the gay “lifestyle” we should love them and accept them and hope they come to an understanding of the Savior. I hope you and your partner a happy and fullfilling life. Live and let live.